Solarte v. Pugeda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge for gross misconduct against respondent Atty. Teofilo F. Pugeda, a former municipal judge and notary public ex officio. The charge stemmed from respondent's alleged notarization of two deeds of sale circa 1964 and 1967 involving parcels of land in General Trias, Cavite, which belonged to Catalino Nocon and were subject to an extrajudicial partition among his children. Complainant, a descendant of the original owner, suspected the deeds to be spurious and sought copies from respondent approximately 30 years after the sale. Respondent was unable to provide copies immediately. Complainant alleged that respondent could not have legally notarized a document to which he also acted as witness, and noted the absence of the vendee's signature in one deed. She further claimed respondent and his wife were administering the property and were responsible for its wrongful partition. Procedural History: The complaint, along with respondent's comment, was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP recommended the dismissal of the charge. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Teofilo F. Pugeda committed gross misconduct in notarizing deeds of sale and acting as a witness thereto. Whether respondent Atty. Teofilo F. Pugeda was responsible for the alleged wrongful partition of the property. Whether the complainant can resurrect issues concerning the validity of the partition and sale of the property, which have already been upheld by final court judgments.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative charge against respondent Atty. Teofilo F. Pugeda, adopting the recommendation of the IBP. The Court found the administrative charge to be utterly without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross misconduct in notarizing deeds of sale and acting as a witness: The Court held that there is no prohibition in law for a notary public to act as a witness to a document he notarized, with the sole exception being a will. The complainant offered no proof, only mere allegations, that respondent was involved in the partition or employed fraud. The Court noted that the complainant's claim of recently discovering the fraud was contradicted by records showing a prior case filed in 1967 by her paternal grandmother and her children for partition and annulment of documents, which was lost up to the Court of Appeals. On the issue of respondent's responsibility for the alleged wrongful partition: The respondent denied that he or his wife was responsible for the partition. The IBP found no evidence in the records showing that respondent and his wife had a hand in the partition and sale of the properties. The Court agreed with the IBP's finding that the complainant failed to substantiate her grave charges with concrete proof. On the issue of resurrecting issues already decided by final court judgments: The Court pointed out that the validity of the partition and the deeds of sale were already brought before and upheld by the courts, with the Court of Appeals rendering its decision on July 31, 1979. After the lapse of more than 20 years without appeal, the judgment attained finality. The complainant cannot now resurrect issues involved in said case. This administrative charge, therefore, was found to be utterly without merit.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer charged with gross misconduct for acts performed as a notary public ex officio must be substantiated by concrete proof, and administrative charges cannot prosper without adequate proof. Issues already passed upon and upheld by final judgments of courts cannot be resurrected in an administrative case.